Quote Originally Posted by mojo
I agree that police need some protection and understanding when it comes to prosecuting their in-the-moment decisions. I agree that cops need to be allowed leeway. In life-and-death situations, one must act fast and that can mean less consistently "correct" results. I do want cops to feel empowered to react in ways that end threats to society.
Agree 100%

However, the US doctrine of "qualified immunity" has been pushed way too far.
It seems so. So why do these legal protections remain in place regardless of who's in power? Each case should be judged on its own merit, with precedent a guide and nothing more.

I do question if everyone who arrives on the scene needs to be armed, though.
It's difficult to take a position on this either way. I'm lucky I live in a country where guns are, for the most part, not a problem in society. I say I'm lucky, I won't feel that way if society collapses, because then I'll be vulnerable, but in a civilised world, yes it's a plus. In USA, you kind of have to assume everyone is potentially armed. So anyone who is putting themself in a potentially violent situation as a mediator or figure of authority probably does need to be armed.

I question if having an unarmed person on the scene, trained in conflict deescalation, who is in primary charge of the situation would help get fewer violent outcomes.
One day, one of these unarmed responders gets shot dead. And then we're back to square one.

I agree that having "combat" trained police is essential to an effective police force. I question whether the ones with primarily combat training should be the ones in charge in all first-response situations.
Again, this is complicated a great deal when we have an armed population.

Over the year of 2020 people died by being shot by police at a rate of about 2 per day in the US.
So around 700 in a country of 350 million people, 200 million of whom are armed? I don't think that's all that alarming to be honest. In Brazil, their police killed a similar number of people in the first half of 2020 in Rio alone.

Note that ~12% of the US population is black, but the ratio of blacks killed in this way is well above that.
This doesn't necessarily imply racist motives in the cops. It's an indication that black people suffer from poverty, on average, more than white people, and are therefore more likely to engage in crime. Maybe there's systematic racism at player here, coupled with cultural factors. But I'd be very surprised if the cops are more likely to shoot black people purely because of the racist feelings of the cop, excluding the occasional bad apple of course.

If there were no cameras on that situation, 100% of the time, Chauvin walks.
This is fixable by legislation. They have body cams. Make it a legal requirement for them to be used. If they have a gun, they have their body cam on at all times.

So we agree that there are reasons that certain groups of people in the US might view the police as a threat to their freedom, and even their life?
Certain groups of people? Yes, sure, like criminals. But anyone can do what this guy did, ie fall asleep drunk, get police attention, and get into a confrontation with them. We can all drink too much and act like a twat. Did this happen because the guy is black? I'm unaware of any evidence to assume this.

Just that these situations are not isolated incidents
"isolated" is a subjective terms and is probably best measured as a percentage rather than a clear figure. How many times when police draw their gun does someone get shot? If we're under 1% then I'd call it "isolated" when it does happen.

I don't know of a civilization 200 years ago
Still a vastly different society.

My point isn't to say that modern societies definitely don't need police. My point is to break the implicit assumption that we do
I don't consider it to be an implicit assumption. It's an opinion I consider to be, on the balance of probabilities, correct. I would fear putting that opinion to the test.

My point is to open the door to investigate why we made this change, and what we can learn upon a reflection of the past 150 years of its implementation.
I guess we made the change because as populations increased, public safety became more of an issue.

It's just that this normalized implementation is a privilege (in the US) afforded to certain groups and not others, so ineffective on the greater scale of public support, IMO.
Equality in law is fundamental to a democratic society. It should be written into your constitution. I should be considered un-American to treat people differently in law.

That depends a great deal on the specifics.What were the exact orders? What were any implicit orders? Did anyone violate international war crimes? Who?
It wasn't the best analogy. My point was simply to remind you that it's not for individual police to decide what laws are and are not justified. They are contractually obliged, and probably by oath, to uphold the law.